Hiddur Mitzvah

Rabbi Yonason Sacks

Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS Adapted from Rabbi Sacks' Yemei Temimim on Pirkei Avos Rebbi stated: What is the just path that a person should choose? Anything that brings glory to oneself and glory from others. Avos, 2:1 , :

Rabeinu Yonah writes that the performance of mitzvos glorifies both HaKadosh Baruch Hu and those who perform them, and is therefore mans ultimate glory. Man should accordingly always strive to fulfill the precept of hiddur mitzvah by beautifying the mitzvos, as for instance, by buying a beautiful lulav, tallis, etc. The Rashbatz, Magen Avos 2:1, contends that one may perform a mitzvah in a manner that is a credit to himself, but for which he receives no credit from others, such as if he performs a mitzvah at a time that people consider inappropriate. On the other hand, a person may fulfill a mitzvah in a manner that brings credit from others, but no true credit to himself, such as a person who performs a mitzvah without the proper intent, but in a manner designed to win the approval of others. Our Tanna therefore teaches that mitzvah performance should be both externally as well as internally glorified. Citing the Gemara (Shabbos 133b) that recommends building a beautiful sukkah, buying a beautiful lulav, shofar, tzitzis, etc. based on the possuk (Shemos 15:2) of ( , this is my G-d and I will glorify Him) the Rashbatz writes that this is the way to gain the esteem of both ones Maker and ones fellows. While the above Gemara makes clear that the precept of hiddur mitzvah applies to the beautification of a chefetz shel mitzvah --the object with which one performs a mitzvah, numerous sources appear to extend the concept of hiddur -- adornment, to the manner in which a mitzvah is performed (ma'aseh mitzvah) as well. For example, the Mishnah in Meseches Pesachim (99b) teaches that it is forbidden to eat on Erev Pesach from the time of Mincha and beyond. As Rashi and the Rashbam explain, this restriction serves to whet ones appetite for matzah, so that its consumption will be performed with a stronger desire, thereby fulfilling the precept of hiddur mitzvah. Although Rashi and the Rashbam are referring to the improved quality of an action (i.e., the act of eating matzah) as opposed to the improved quality of an object (i.e., such as purchasing a better quality matzah) they nonetheless apply the concept of hiddur mitzvah. Similarly, Tosafos (Sukkah 38b, s.v. Sh'ma) extend the concept of hiddur mitzvah to the mitzvah of tefillah, which inherently lacks any physical chefetz shel mitzvah. Tosafos deal with the case of an individual who is in the middle of his personal silent recitation of the Amidah when the shliach tzibur reaches the communal Kedusha. While such an individual is halachically
30
Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Kislev 5772

prohibited from verbally responding to the shliach tziburs Kedusha (such a response would constitute a hefsek, or interruption, of his own silent Amidah), the question arises as to whether he has any other options. Tosafos cite the opinion of Rashi in the name of the BaHaG, who suggests that one should temporarily stop his own prayer and listen silently with the intent to fulfill the obligation of Kedusha vicariously through the shliach tzibur. By employing the halachic vehicle of shomei'a k'oneh, which posits that listening (to a beracha) is considered tantamount to actually reciting the beracha, one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kedusha without physically uttering a word, thereby avoiding the problem of hefsek in his own Amidah. Once Kedusha concludes, he may continue his own silent Amidah from where he left off. Tosafos themselves, however, question this ruling, citing the Gemara in Berachos (21b) that requires one to time the beginning of his silent Amidah in a manner that will enable him to have finished by the time the shliach tzibur reaches Kedusha. According to Rashi, ask Tosafos, why cant one simply begin his tefillah at any time, stop and listen attentively when the shliach tzibur reaches Kedusha, and then resume his prayer? Tosafos therefore disagree with Rashis suggestion, maintaining that even the mere employment of shomei'a k'oneh without any verbal participation constitutes a hefsek of ones silent Amidah as well. Accordingly, one who finds himself in such a situation would have no option other than to ignore the shliach tziburs Kedusha, and simply continue reciting his personal Amidah. In the course of their analysis, Tosafos parenthetically mention that even if the mechanism of shomei'a k'oneh serves to create a virtual halachic equivalency between listening and responding to Kedusha, it is nonetheless halachically preferable to verbally respond, as the actual physical involvement in reciting the Kedusha constitutes hiddur mitzvah (see the parallel Tosafos in Meseches Berachos 21a s.v. Ad). Although the Mitzvah of Kedusha clearly does not involve any physical object or chefetz shel mitzvah, Tosafos nonetheless apply the concept of hiddur mitzvah. Apparently, hiddur mitzvah extends beyond the mere beautification of an object used for a mitzvah to include even the manner in which the mitzvah is performed. The Avnei Nezer ( 433) extends the concept of hiddur mitzvah of ma'aseh mitzvah to the context of the arba minim of Sukkos. Citing Rashi, the Raavad, and the Yereim, the Avnei Nezer notes that one fulfills hiddur mitzvah by completely binding the lulav, hadasim, and aravos together. Beautification in this case is a function of the manner in which one takes the species, as opposed to the actual quality or appearance of the species themselves. The Avnei Nezer cites the Yerushalmi (Sukkah 3:7), which notes the absence of a conjunctive between the mention of esrog and lulav along with the presence of a conjunctive between the mention of lulav, hadasim, and aravos in the possuk: And you shall take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook Vayikra 23:40 ... :

From this difference, the Yerushalmi derives that the lulav, hadasim, and aravos must be taken together (lekicha achas) in one hand. Given this requirement, binding these three species
31
Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Kislev 5772

together tightly in order to ensure an even greater fulfillment of lekicha achas constitutes an act of hiddur mitzvah. In a similar fashion, the BaHaG explains that one who holds the arba minim in an inverted fashion (i.e., not in the manner in which they grew on the tree) does not fulfill his obligation because he has not fulfilled the precept of hiddur mitzvah. Although the quality and appearance of the arba minim themselves in such a scenario is not at all deficient, the manner in which the mitzvah is performed, i.e., in an inverted fashion, does not bring splendor or beauty to the mitzvah. R Asher Weiss (Minchas Asher, Shemos 25) further extends this concept to the mitzvah of bris milah. Bris milah requires that the complete foreskin (orlah) be removed, but given the halachic principle of rubo k'kulo -- the greater part of something is considered the Halachic equivalent of the entirety, a milah which simply removes the majority of the orlah is nonetheless considered valid, though not mehudar (optimal/beautified). Hiddur, in the case of bris milah, is thus fulfilled through the removal of the entire orlah as opposed to the mere majority. R Weiss notes that this type of hiddur is not simply a beautification of the object of the mitzvah of bris milah, but rather an enhancement of the manner in which the mitzvah of milah is performed, as one conducts a complete cut as opposed to a minimal cut. Because a complete removal of the orlah enhances the manner in which the mitzvah is performed, removal of any remaining orlah, even after the majority has already been removed, may be performed on Shabbos (i.e., at the time of the bris milah), since such an action is considered a part of the perfected action of the mitzvah, subsumed within the mitzvah itself. If this hiddur was merely a beautification of the object of milah, however, R Weiss suggests that it would not be permitted on Shabbos. R Weiss cites the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh (Beis Dins sanctification of the new moon) as another example of hiddur mitzvah that pertains to a ma'aseh mitzvah. Even if the new moon is clearly visible and the members of Beis Din have seen it for themselves, hiddur mitzvah requires that witnesses attest to having seen it, even though the lack of witnesses would not be invalidating. Here, again, there is no physical chefetz shel mitzvah, but the concept of hiddur mitzvah nonetheless applies. R Weiss adds that, in contrast to the aforementioned examples, hiddur mitzvah would not apply to the mitzvah of shechita (ritual slaughter). Although Halachas encouragement of severing the entire windpipe and esophagus as opposed to the minimally required majority of the two sounds like a form of hiddur mitzvah (i.e., reminiscent of the case of milah, in which removing the entirety of the orlah as opposed to relying on the majority, constituted hiddur mitzvah), this requirement is actually quite different from the aforementioned cases of hiddur mitzvah. Rather than beautifying or enhancing the object or act of the mitzvah, the encouragement of a complete cutting for shechita is simply a precautionary measure, in order to keep one from accidentally cutting less than the majority, a situation which would entirely invalidate the shechita. R Weiss explains that the concept of hiddur mitzvah is inapplicable to shechita because, as opposed to milah, shechita is considered to be a matir- permit, as opposed to a classic mitzvah. While all Jewish males are automatically obligated in the mitzvah of milah regardless of personal preferences or situations, only one who desires to eat meat must perform shechita,
32
Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Kislev 5772

simply in order to render the meat permissible for consumption. Because shechita is not a classic obligation but rather a permit, it is not subject to the principles of hiddur mitzvah. The Pri Megadim (O.C. 656:1, M.Z. n. 1) writes that the notion of hiddur mitzvah extends even to the fulfillment of a mitzvah in a manner that satisfies the stringencies of all major opinions. For instance, although an esrog with a blemish might have been ruled halachically acceptable, hiddur mitzvah would still demand that one spend up to a third more to buy an esrog that satisfies all opinions of kashrus (see Beur Halacha there). Similarly, because the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 473:5) rules that the preferred form of maror is chazeres, romaine lettuce, the Chok Yaakov (ibid., n. 22) notes that one should spend up to a third more to buy this preferred form of maror. As a final note, R Asher Weiss adds that the concept of hiddur mitzvah extends to the person performing the mitzvah as well: by troubling to perform the mitzvah in a beautiful manner and with a beautiful item, a person actually adorns himself. This concept is beautifully illustrated by Rashi in Meseches Yoma (70a). There, the Gemara describes that after the Kohen Gadols public Torah reading on Yom Kippur, every person who had brought a sefer Torah to the Azarah (i.e., before the start of Yom Kippur) read from it l'haros chazuso larabim in order to display its beauty to the masses. Rashi explains: To display the beauty of the script and the splendor of its owner who toiled to become beautiful through the mitzvah as it states (Shemos 15:2), "This is my G-d and I will glorify Him," be comely with mitzvos- a beautiful lulav, a beautiful sefer Torah with beautiful parchment, beautiful ink and an expert scribe. Rashi, Meseches Yoma, s.v. L'Haros , , - ) (, , , , , , . " . "

Beyond the beauty of the actual scroll, the owner himself is beautified through his meticulous attention to the enhancement of the mitzvah. Indeed, the Midrash HaGadol comments on the same possuk: Be comely with mitzvos, for adorning the mitzvos beautifies a person. Midrash HaGadol, Shemos 15:2 . , :

Accordingly, as our Mishnah hints, beautification of the mitzvos is most certainly a ,as it in turn brings glory and beauty to the person who does so.

33
Yeshiva University A To-Go Series Kislev 5772